[alanh]

Rhetorical, and if I could still edit to take the tone a step towards neutral, I would. But parent is an out-of-place and out-of-date criticism of w3c in my opinion. At minimum, they should explain why HTML5 is not a counter-example of their claim

[epistasis]

You should learn the history of HTML5, it's a perfect example of how the W3C is terribly broken, and certainly not an adequate or passable standards body. HTML5 was developed outside of W3C, in spite of the W3C, and at the objection of the W3C. Remember XHTML2? Hopefully not, but that's what the W3C wanted to do. The WHATWG formed to create HTML5 because browser makers wanted to improve the web and it was obvious that XHTML2 wasn't going to do that.

After it was clear how useful HTML5 was, the W3C was dragged into participation, but unlike W3C standards, HTML5 continued on with it's open development model where discussion takes place in the open.

The W3C has not contributed the idea, the execution, the prolitical process, or the people to HTML5, and HTML5 is a W3C standard by label only. If you look at the other standards the W3C creates, you'll see a pattern where standards are developed in isolation behind closed doors and without implementations, in direct contrast to any useable and useful standard such as HTML5. RDF, OWL, SVG, all abominations that seem to exist to hold back others from making reasonable and useful replacements.